Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1266/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 17/02/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 February 2000

PARTIES : Janet Patricia Beattie v John Robert Reid JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M.F. Le Poer Trench for plaintiff Mr G.J. Watkins for defendant SOLICITORS : Kacie Safi & Halligan for plaintiff David Trodden & Associates for defendant CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application for extention of time under s 18 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Principles upon which an extension is granted discussed. Application granted CASES CITED : Bevan v Falshaw 15 Fam LR 686; In the Marriage of Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612 DECISION : Paragraph 16

- 1 - THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

29 February 2000.

1266/99 JANET PATRICIA BEATTIE v JOHN ROBERT REID

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: There is presently for hearing before me an application brought by the defendant by way of a Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 1999. The applicant seeks leave to commence proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 out of time. The proceedings are brought by the defendant's former partner seeking orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act. The orders are sought in respect of the property owned by the plaintiff and the defendant as joint tenants. 2 The parties commenced a de facto relationship either in 1969, according to the plaintiff, or in 1972 according to the defendant. In 1972 the property 60 Harrabrook Avenue, Five Dock was purchased in the name of the defendant. They cohabited thereafter in the property. In May 1977 the property was transferred from the defendant's name to the plaintiff and the defendant as joint tenants. No consideration was paid on that transfer. In 1990 the parties separated and after that there was still further contact between them to which I will return later. It does however seem that they are agreed that the relationship finished in 1990. There were no children of the relationship but the plaintiff had two young children aged five and seven at the time of the commencement of the relationship and they lived with the parties throughout the relationship. 3 Section 18 of the Act is in the following terms:- "18 Time limit for making applications